(from an AMA elsewhere) —“Curt, What are your biggest vices, if any?”— I dunno. I’m basically an arrogant, effete, elitist, asshole and that’s my primary vice. (And I like to troll-f…ck idiots quite a bit) Otherwise not many. I don’t really drink, smoke, pop, trip, thot, or anything else. I guess my family would say I”m an obnoxious tease, but that’s just a means of playing while avoiding my impulses to correct idiots.
Form: Reply
-
What are your vices?
(from an AMA elsewhere) —“Curt, What are your biggest vices, if any?”— I dunno. I’m basically an arrogant, effete, elitist, asshole and that’s my primary vice. (And I like to troll-f…ck idiots quite a bit) Otherwise not many. I don’t really drink, smoke, pop, trip, thot, or anything else. I guess my family would say I”m an obnoxious tease, but that’s just a means of playing while avoiding my impulses to correct idiots.
-
—“You’re Misguided”—
I think you’ll at least understand my restatement of history, once you understand deflationary and critical vs inflationary, conflationary, and fictional grammars. I am tracking the technologies of truth and deception, and group evolutionary strategy using those grammars, just as you would track the history of linguistics, genes, pottery, or metallurgy. I track economics not literature. I understand that man seizes opportunities then justifies them. I understand the desire for literature in some classes and results in other classes throughout history. And once you have these understandings, you also attribute very different values and incentives to historical events, just as knowledge of science forced us to rewrite our understanding and history. Now, you might say I err, but do I err, but it’s extremely unlikely that I err. Because we need do nothing more than study the economics (incentives), and grammars (excuses) to determine whether people acted morally in fact, or immorally, casting themselves as moral. I am not misguided. My understanding of history is very clearly, the initiation of indo europeans, and the socially destabilizing counter-revolutions against their innovations, because meritocracy, reciprocity, sovereignty, and markets are a threat to every single old order. The problem that you’ll face is providing superior explanatory power with greater parsimony, without appealing to knowledge that can’t exist in time and space. You don’t know that (yet). but that’s what you’re dealing with. Cheers
-
—“You’re Misguided”—
I think you’ll at least understand my restatement of history, once you understand deflationary and critical vs inflationary, conflationary, and fictional grammars. I am tracking the technologies of truth and deception, and group evolutionary strategy using those grammars, just as you would track the history of linguistics, genes, pottery, or metallurgy. I track economics not literature. I understand that man seizes opportunities then justifies them. I understand the desire for literature in some classes and results in other classes throughout history. And once you have these understandings, you also attribute very different values and incentives to historical events, just as knowledge of science forced us to rewrite our understanding and history. Now, you might say I err, but do I err, but it’s extremely unlikely that I err. Because we need do nothing more than study the economics (incentives), and grammars (excuses) to determine whether people acted morally in fact, or immorally, casting themselves as moral. I am not misguided. My understanding of history is very clearly, the initiation of indo europeans, and the socially destabilizing counter-revolutions against their innovations, because meritocracy, reciprocity, sovereignty, and markets are a threat to every single old order. The problem that you’ll face is providing superior explanatory power with greater parsimony, without appealing to knowledge that can’t exist in time and space. You don’t know that (yet). but that’s what you’re dealing with. Cheers
-
RT @RealJamesWoods: This guy has done to beautiful London what centuries of inva
RT @RealJamesWoods: This guy has done to beautiful London what centuries of invaders failed to do… https://t.co/cD1vRgy5Dn
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-27 01:45:43 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/989681969670836225
-
James Woods (@RealJamesWoods): This guy has done to beautiful London what centur
https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/988493813533601794/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=989681969670836225Retweeted James Woods (@RealJamesWoods):
This guy has done to beautiful London what centuries of invaders failed to do… https://t.co/cD1vRgy5Dn
Source date (UTC): 2018-04-26 21:45:00 UTC
-
The Western Cult Is Sovereignty and Law
TO TALEB (THE WESTERN CULT IS SOVEREIGNTY AND LAW) (possibly important post for followers) Replying to @nntaleb @bryan_caplan @tylercowen Nassim: a) Substitute “Warranty and Liability” for “Skin in the Game” and you switch from discourse under colloquial, rhetorical, propter-hoc, low trust, heterogeneous, bazaars, to scientific post-hoc, high trust, homogenous, rule-of-law ‘markets’ proper. Nassim: b) I’ve watched you slowly move this direction, but I haven’t seen you include the fact that western civ and all it’s +/-‘s are the result of the primacy of sovereignty and reciprocity in the traditional law back into oral (pre-)history. Nassim: c) And so, my reading of history, is that the aristocracy was taught to rule (meaning decide, not direct), and the nobility to govern (direct), and labor to obey. (Indo European Tripartism). Otherwise I’m certain your positioning of the ‘Doctrine’ vs ‘Techne’ is correct. Nassim: d) So my read is the law is taught as a craft (practiced) and the ‘liberal arts” are taught as doctrines, and we are wasting a phenomenal amount of money not separating Techne(craft), Religion(obedience), and Law(Rule). Meaning the problem is the Academy (secular church). Nassim e: (Closing) So my intuition is that we all carry our cultures with us and possibly to some degree in our genes, and that this cultural difference is what you are intuiting, but expressing in literary, rational, and mathematical rather than western (legal,scientific) form.
-
The Western Cult Is Sovereignty and Law
TO TALEB (THE WESTERN CULT IS SOVEREIGNTY AND LAW) (possibly important post for followers) Replying to @nntaleb @bryan_caplan @tylercowen Nassim: a) Substitute “Warranty and Liability” for “Skin in the Game” and you switch from discourse under colloquial, rhetorical, propter-hoc, low trust, heterogeneous, bazaars, to scientific post-hoc, high trust, homogenous, rule-of-law ‘markets’ proper. Nassim: b) I’ve watched you slowly move this direction, but I haven’t seen you include the fact that western civ and all it’s +/-‘s are the result of the primacy of sovereignty and reciprocity in the traditional law back into oral (pre-)history. Nassim: c) And so, my reading of history, is that the aristocracy was taught to rule (meaning decide, not direct), and the nobility to govern (direct), and labor to obey. (Indo European Tripartism). Otherwise I’m certain your positioning of the ‘Doctrine’ vs ‘Techne’ is correct. Nassim: d) So my read is the law is taught as a craft (practiced) and the ‘liberal arts” are taught as doctrines, and we are wasting a phenomenal amount of money not separating Techne(craft), Religion(obedience), and Law(Rule). Meaning the problem is the Academy (secular church). Nassim e: (Closing) So my intuition is that we all carry our cultures with us and possibly to some degree in our genes, and that this cultural difference is what you are intuiting, but expressing in literary, rational, and mathematical rather than western (legal,scientific) form.
-
The Possibility of an American Revolution
THE POSSIBILITY OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION Replying to @DiasporaDiabhal @thefaceberg 1) While historically a small percentage (under 3%) of unwed males have been the cause for most revolutions (men being a surplus resource of violence like any other resource) it is trivial at this point in time for very small numbers to bring an end to the american government. 2) In fact I cannot think of a time in history where such a revolution would be so trivially brought about. Not just because of a small number of men, but because, like the fall of the roman empire, the basis of our civilization (military service and common law) has been undermined and the common man married or not are in rebellious mood. 3) In the ancient world, judaism was invented to resist, christianity to subvert, then islam used to conquer, and destroy all the great civilizations of the ancient world, creating the Abrahamic Dark Ages. So immigration of hostiles, the conversion of our women and underclass…. 4) Localized rebellion, invasion, the costs of land vs marine policing, the plagues, and the islamic conquest of mediterranean and indian ocean trade, combined with a surplus of males able to retreat into deserts, destroyed every single great civilization between 100 and 1200 … 5) … with the Fresh Reserves of newly islamicized Turks, assisted by plague. accomplishing what the exhausted arabs could not in 1453. It took until 1683 to exhaust the Turks, who could not govern the arabs either. So we have fought islam for 1400 years. 6) And so far, only China, Japan, and Korea, on one end, and America on the other, have resisted the Muslim Conquests. Today muslims are accomplishing through migration what they could not achieve through martial means. It’s just numbers. 7) So imagine something as simple as cutting off EBT (welfare payments) to urban centers by serial overloading (shorting) of power lines, and cutting of transmission lines. That is one of only a hundred similar techniques that do not require armed conflict so much as “just letting the pressure of the dam, do its work”.
-
The Possibility of an American Revolution
THE POSSIBILITY OF AMERICAN REVOLUTION Replying to @DiasporaDiabhal @thefaceberg 1) While historically a small percentage (under 3%) of unwed males have been the cause for most revolutions (men being a surplus resource of violence like any other resource) it is trivial at this point in time for very small numbers to bring an end to the american government. 2) In fact I cannot think of a time in history where such a revolution would be so trivially brought about. Not just because of a small number of men, but because, like the fall of the roman empire, the basis of our civilization (military service and common law) has been undermined and the common man married or not are in rebellious mood. 3) In the ancient world, judaism was invented to resist, christianity to subvert, then islam used to conquer, and destroy all the great civilizations of the ancient world, creating the Abrahamic Dark Ages. So immigration of hostiles, the conversion of our women and underclass…. 4) Localized rebellion, invasion, the costs of land vs marine policing, the plagues, and the islamic conquest of mediterranean and indian ocean trade, combined with a surplus of males able to retreat into deserts, destroyed every single great civilization between 100 and 1200 … 5) … with the Fresh Reserves of newly islamicized Turks, assisted by plague. accomplishing what the exhausted arabs could not in 1453. It took until 1683 to exhaust the Turks, who could not govern the arabs either. So we have fought islam for 1400 years. 6) And so far, only China, Japan, and Korea, on one end, and America on the other, have resisted the Muslim Conquests. Today muslims are accomplishing through migration what they could not achieve through martial means. It’s just numbers. 7) So imagine something as simple as cutting off EBT (welfare payments) to urban centers by serial overloading (shorting) of power lines, and cutting of transmission lines. That is one of only a hundred similar techniques that do not require armed conflict so much as “just letting the pressure of the dam, do its work”.